Outside Topic Way OT: Ukraine - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Outside Topic Way OT: Ukraine (/thread-23071.html)

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 06-14-2025

The thing is, even if the regime was to fall and be replaced by some sort of liberal democracy (which I think is pretty darn unlikely), the Iranian people would probably still hate Israel, and their government would still have plenty of motivation to pursue a nuclear weapon, especially after these strikes.

I'm pretty skeptical Israel can force a regime change with air power alone. And I'm pretty skeptical that whatever replaces the regime would be much better.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 06-15-2025

(06-14-2025, 10:18 PM)gocard14 Wrote:  Thanks for the analysis Goose and a lot of that rings true. 

I also wonder about the timeline here. Having seriously degraded Irans air defenses, and possibly having weathered or destroyed much of Iran's ballistic missile response capability, what is preventing this from turning into a months long campaign of aerial bombardment? Especially if Israeli planes can now get close enough to use "dumb" bombs which they presumably have or can get a much larger supply of.

At the moment, nothing appears to stand in the way of that scenario. The Israeli government has publicly indicated that bombing will continue "for a long time until every target is destroyed". Iran will launch whatever it can for as long as it can. How this all ends is a big question. Israel has its preferred scenario, but that may not come to pass. The Saudi's have their own interests and may broker some kind of a diplomatic deal that leaves Iran weaker and Saudi stronger, and Saudi "recognizing" Israel as part of the deal. That might fit Saudi ambitions to become the major Islamic power in the region. Türkiye (Erdogan) may also see an opportunity to become the "big dog" in the middle east. https://trt.global/afrika-english/article/d0b7176e22b7 They also border Syria in a place where they could take it upon themselves to "protect" Syrian air space. That would of course result in a clash with Israel. Hopefully Erdogan will continue to be satisfied with words and not resort to deeds.

Israel also has some time limits. Iran will not sit still. Most of their air defense is in the southern part of the country. That deployment made sense when the Persian Gulf was the main threat axis. Redeployment to a more Northwest posture  will make it more difficult for Israel and Israel will lose some planes. Iran can't stop Israel but it can raise the price. Iran is also undoubtedly trying to get more air defense capability. Right now (unfortunately for the world) it is a seller's market. War makes strange bedfellows. China might "help" if they see a clear diplomatic/military reason. Russia is way too busy with its own problems. Israel suffers from the serious effects this war has on its economy. As long as it looks like they are "winning" and may reach the goal of removing Iran as a major force against Israel, that may be fine. If it ever looks like they will not succeed, domestic politics can call a halt to the effort. The US may also call a halt by credible threaten to withdraw support from Israel. I don't see that happening "soon" but it isn't impossible if this war drags on.

Quote:Internally, while there is dislike of Netenyahu, all parties are in favor of preventing an Iranian nuclear program or at least are standing behind the flag. Internationally, Iran has made few friends and many enemies. Even countries that dislike Israel are likely happy to see the two have at it, which fits the fact that there has seemed to be little international outcry.

Mostly agree. Lots of the "power brokers" in the Middle East would like to see Iran come to grief. These states see a weakened Iran as creating a vacuum that said state can fill. However as things play out these states will want to see "stability" and their attitudes will change.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 06-15-2025

(06-14-2025, 10:35 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  The thing is, even if the regime was to fall and be replaced by some sort of liberal democracy (which I think is pretty darn unlikely),

I absolutely agree that whatever "comes after" will not be a "liberal" democracy. I am certain Israel believes the same. Their goal is a regime whose view of its national interest is not dominated by Shia religious imperatives. They believe they can "do business" with such a government, as they have with Egypt. The Iranian successor government may not even be a "real" democracy for very long. The following article is IMO "interesting" https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/iransource/israel-iran-succession-khamenei-mojtaba-video/ (Paywall) There several articles on the net that analyze the philosophies, leaders, and groups involved. Civil war does figure in some of them. Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani is a Shia cleric and Iraqi politician. He advocates a conservative religious philosophy coupled with a secular state. His philosophy is gaining traction in Iran. That could be a "way ahead" that is religiously acceptable to pious Shia Iranians that want regime change.

Quote:the Iranian people would probably still hate Israel,

Iran and its people have historically been less anti-Israel than most other Middle Eastern countries. During the Regan years the Israelis and the Iranian governments did "business" regularly, if quietly. The fact the Iranians aren't Arabs and are relatively far from Israel are also factors. The current Iranian government uses anti-Israel propaganda to 1) attract and control its Arab proxies and 2) establish their bona fides as a qualified leader of the Islamic resistance to Israel. How far that actually penetrates the local population is IMO (and others) questionable.

Quote:and their government would still have plenty of motivation to pursue a nuclear weapon, especially after these strikes.

Maybe. Israel hopes that, worst case, Iran will need to spend all its available revenue in reconstituting its conventional military. Israel also probably hopes Iran and its people will conclude that the "price" of obtaining nuclear weapons is way too high and will remain that way. You may be right about the Iranian government's future motivation. Probably it depends a lot on who actually takes over.

Quote:I'm pretty skeptical Israel can force a regime change with air power alone. And I'm pretty skeptical that whatever replaces the regime would be much better.

IMO Israel agrees that air power alone can't "force" regime change. What the do believe is that the desire for regime change in Iran is very high and that all that prevents it from happening right now is the iron grip of the Religious Police and the Republican Guard. If air power can weaken that grip Israel believes regime change might occur "naturally". Targeting the leader of the Republican Guard certainly does that, though there are obviously other good reasons. Is this wishful thinking by Israel? Maybe. Predicting events in Iran has not been intelligence agencies strong suit :-)

Israel's hope that a successor regime would be "better" is IMO also limited. They want a regime that is driven by "realpolitik" independent of blind theocracy. Israel thinks that would be a significant improvement. In that, they may be wrong. An Iranian regime that was "acceptable" to "the west" may be a much more formidable opponent than the current Iranian regime is. Israel obviously hopes being "acceptable" requires not being anti-Israel.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - M T - 06-15-2025

It would be quite naive if the US supports Putin as a mediator in the Israel-Iran conflict.   Putin, personally and his country, benefits financially from that conflict continuing. Putin’s own war benefits from this conflict as it draws weapon and attention from Ukraine?

What benefit does Russia get if this conflict ends?

He will pull the same delaying stuff he has in his own war. 

Indeed if the US pushes for Putin to be a peace maker here, I believe that would mean the administration may be showing it wants the Israel-Iran conflict to be prolonged, despite any lip service to ending the conflict.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 06-15-2025

First, to clarify the "state of play" regarding the APKWS missiles that were originally built for use in Ukraine. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Precision_Kill_Weapon_System

Quote:In April 2025, a new dual-mode APKWS II variant with a full-scale mockup was revealed, featuring a passive infrared sensor as well as the original's laser-guidance, allowing the weapon to be fired with "anoint-and-shoot" capability (where the target is initially lased to orient the missile, but the lase is not maintained and the infrared sensor takes over for terminal guidance) to increase rate of fire, particularly against large numbers of cruise missile or unmanned aerial vehicle targets.[17] The addition of the nose-mounted infrared seeker necessitated moving the warhead to the mid-body of the rocket, which provides an improved blast- fragmentation pattern with no loss of lethality; however modifications increase the cost compared to the original.[17] Development is expected to be completed by the end of 2026.[17]

This development scenario means that the APKWS bought for Ukraine were NOT the dual-mode APKWS II variant. These missiles were initially intended for use against ground targets. It is probable that the missiles intended for Ukraine were equipped with the "proximity fuse" demonstrated in 2021 for use against drones.
 
To be absolutely clear, these missiles require the "target" to be illuminated ("designated") by a laser "continuously" during the flight of the missile. It operates in a semi-active laser homing mode. It is not necessary that the laser be "on target" immediately at launch, but it must be accomplished "soon". The missile theoretically has a 40 degree field of view (https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/apkws) and can lock on when it "sees" the laser reflection from the target. The missile time of flight maximum is about 18 seconds, so the laser doesn't need to be held "on target" all that long. The missiles intended for use against drones in Ukraine would require laser illuminators. That is not supplied with the missiles, but such "kits" are readily available. These missiles can be launched from the ground or from aircraft.

https://www.businessinsider.com/us-fighter-jets-used-laser-guided-rockets-houthi-drone-kills-2025-6 I missed this article previously (paywall). This is a "good" use of these missiles. They are cheap and effective in this configuration. The F-16 has its own laser designator already built-in. I assume the F-16s used in Ukraine still have them. However, the "main use" of these missiles in Ukraine was undoubtedly ground launched. Ukraine has too few F-16s to be effective if it were to be the only platform using them. At a minimum, software changes to the F-16 would probably be required. Obviously the missiles "work well" when used in the "air to air" mode. Good thing drones fly slow.

However, the "urgent need" for 20,000 such missiles in the Middle East is still unclear. They are being used against Houthi missiles/drones, not some drones notionally launched against US troop concentrations. I can agree that using these missiles ground launched against drones targeting US troops in a self-defense mode is "rational". A couple of thousand such missiles deployed for that usage could "make sense". I can also see holding back 10,000 such missiles in a European location as "contingency", either for the Middle East or Ukraine as rational. However, I see no "urgent need" that would require holding back all 20,000 from Ukraine. Send 5K to Ukraine and see how effective they are (or are not). Go from there.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - M T - 06-15-2025

An interesting article by the BBC:
The first trial of its kind: A Russian soldier takes the stand for an execution

One of Russia's get-out-of-jail soldiers is accused (by 3 in his unit) of executing a Ukrainian soldier who was surrendering.
The BBC got to interview him (with his & the judge's agreement, and no part of interview could be entered as evidence) about what lead to this point.   A fight as a young man landed him in jail.  When he got out, he had nothing and turned to stealing.  And then jail again.

His unit of 18 were all released prisoners, given 21 days of training before going to the front.  They were allegedly instructed to take no prisoners, including any that surrendered.  10 of the 18 were quickly killed.  The (3?) Ukrainians died or surrendered; A few hours later, more Ukrainians captured the 8 Russians.

The in-depth article points out many complicating factors, such as the difficulty of proving the case of an event that happens in a war, and perhaps having to swap him for Ukrainian civilians held by Russia.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - fullmetal - 06-15-2025

Tragic on both sides, and utterly unnecessary if not for the madness of Putin.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 06-15-2025

Interesting comparison of Israeli air superiority in western Iran and the lack thereof for Russia in Ukraine…

https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/israel-takes-control-of-irans-skiesa-feat-that-still-eludes-russia-in-ukraine-846ccb95?st=9WXezR&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

Should be gifted.

BC

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 06-16-2025

(06-15-2025, 09:41 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  Interesting comparison of Israeli air superiority in western Iran and the lack thereof for Russia in Ukraine…

https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/israel-takes-control-of-irans-skiesa-feat-that-still-eludes-russia-in-ukraine-846ccb95?st=9WXezR&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

Should be gifted.

BC

Great article BC, thanks! The article makes lots of good points (high density!). IMO the most important ones are that 1) Israel having F-35s was key to their gaining air superiority (at least) in western Iran without incurring heavy losses, and 2) Iran's air force and IADS was not nearly as strong as Ukraine's, both in hardware and especially in leadership. IMO this needs more emphasis because the Israeli success needs to be evaluated in context.
 
When the Soviet Union dissolved the Ukraine/Crimea area possessed one of the largest and most capable IADS in the world. It was of course intended to defend Russia, not defend against Russia. However, reorienting it was possible. The hardware was 30 years old in 2022, but it was still quite serviceable. Iran OTOH had relatively little missile based air defense in 1979. It did have a superb air force. Iran then was faced with sanctions that cut if off from spare parts and tech support. It then had to fight a long and bloody war with Iraq. Most of its western-made missile systems, such as they were, were expended. The air force also suffered heavy attrition. Their few F-4s and F-14s are now ancient, 46 years old at a minimum. The Iranians were also unable to acquire an adequate air defense from the countries that would still sell to them, mostly Russia and China.

The article also addresses the difference between the Israeli (and NATO) theory of air warfare.

Quote:“All the Russians have is pilots. They grow these pilots to drive flying artillery, and that’s it,” he said.

While that isn't literally true it does encapsulate what Russia expects offensively from its air force vs. what Israel does. Defensively is another matter. We do not know what the Russian air force could accomplish if attacked by a "western" air force. Their inability/unwillingness to combat Ukrainian drones with the VKS does raise questions/doubts. No conclusions should be drawn about Russian defensive capabilities from the Iranian's performance nor from the war in Ukraine. The material disparities are just too great to tell us anything.

---

Ukraine, specifically Zelenskyy, has expressed a desire for Ukraine to follow the "Israeli model" if it cannot join NATO. There are lots of problems with that, but a look at the Israeli air force highlights one of them. The Israeli "fighting" ORBAT consists of:

1. 175 F-16C/I (Sufa) Fighter/Bombers. The I models have conformal shoulder tanks for greatly extended range.
   
2. 39 F-35I Stealth Fighter/Bombers. These are F-35As with Israeli specific hardware and software modifications.
   
3. 84 F-15A/F-15C Fighter/Bombers.
   
4. 25 F-15 Strike Eagle Fighter/Bombers.
   

Ukraine OTOH have 85 F-16s of mixed vintage "promised", with somewhere under 40 delivered. Ukraine also has "around" 6 operational Mirage 2000s with 24 total promised. They also have somewhere between 30 and 60 operational Soviet-era aircraft remaining, maybe. It is obvious how far  short of an Israeli model Ukraine is today.
 
Could Israel have executed the air war they are fighting without F-35s? Yes, but the cost in F-16s would be much higher and it would take much longer to reach the point they are at today, several weeks at a minimum. During that time Iran could blast away with its ballistic missiles. Could Ukraine do the same against Russia? If Ukraine had 200 F-16s with experienced pilots, jamming pods, lots of HARM missiles and intelligence/ELINT support, yes, IMO Ukraine could achieve local air superiority over a substantial swath of the battlefield. That would make things very dicey for the Russians in that area. Today, obviously absolutely not.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - gocard14 - 06-16-2025

One big thing missing on that list for the Israelis is any sort of longer range heavy bomber, which limits the ordinance they can deploy. Any chance they try to use their C130s in that role?

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 06-16-2025

(06-16-2025, 09:55 AM)gocard14 Wrote:  One big thing missing on that list for the Israelis is any sort of longer range heavy bomber, which limits the ordinance they can deploy. Any chance they try to use their C130s in that role?

Good insight. The lack of a "heavy bomber" doesn't matter for most missions. Israel can just use "more" F-15s. The one place that may not/doesn't work is the deeply buried nuclear facilities. A large ground perpetrator requires a larger aircraft. I do not know if Israel has any, as they theoretically can't carry them. Iran probably has some surprises hiding to protect these deeply buried buy very high valued facilities. I don't think Israel could get a C-130 in there reliably and a "jury rig" bombing system is also risky. It may be a real problem for them.
 
https://www.twz.com/air/armada-of-usaf-tankers-just-deployed-east-over-atlantic-spurring-speculation provides another possibility. It is only a "possibility". As part of Scenario 4

Quote:American B-2s are the only known conventional assets that have the potential capability of badly disabling or destroying Iran’s deepest underground components of its nuclear program. We have constantly highlighted this scenario for many years. Pre-positioning a tanker bridge spanning the Atlantic to the Middle East would be needed to support those heavily-laden B-2 operations.

Certainly a possibility. However, there are B-2s already forward-deployed in Diego Garcia. That is a different direction of approach, but it requires many fewer tankers. Coming from the west is "safer", as Israel controls that airspace, but maybe the B-2 guys don't care about that :-) The administration could simply say "We tried to negotiate. That didn't work, so we took care of it ourselves". Perhaps also creating a credible threat to allow the administration to jump in and end the conflict with a "mutually acceptable" (gun to head) agreement.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 06-16-2025

Good night, sweet prince. Even if they are Iranian, it hurts to see Tomcats blow up.

https://x.com/manniefabian/status/1934665118530322934

(These are non-operational F14 airframes that have been in this location for a couple years. Israel may have already destroyed some of their flying siblings in hangars, though I think they may have some in deep underground hangars that may still have survived so far)

Also in the tweet are strikes against the Iranian state broadcasting building. They were on air when the strikes happened. Video below (there are reportedly deaths and injuries from that strike but the video below from the broadcast doesn't show any gore).

https://x.com/arash_tehran/status/1934630559705116858


These are all claimed drone strikes. And we have video of Israeli drones operating freely over Tehran, as below.

https://x.com/AuroraIntel/status/1934641788385480830

------

Back to Ukraine, Ukrainian intelligence reportedly recently destroyed an electrical transformer in Kaliningrad. Video from that operation below.

https://x.com/wartranslated/status/1934181861812547646

------

Finally, seeing ballistic missile impacts in major cities is very jarring. Must be incredibly frightening to be seeing those coming at you. Israel has intercepted the vast majority, but there have still been impacts in multiple Israeli cities. If any of those had nuclear warheads, there are millions dead now in Tel Aviv and Haifa.

A future Iranian regime, even one guided solely by realpolitik with no religious animus towards Israel, would be driven to obtain nuclear weapons. Would be a far cheaper way of establishing deterrence than trying to rebuild a conventional force that could withstand what Israel just did to them.

I think Israel's best hope/plan is for Iran to become a failed state a la Libya or Gaza. Too weak to do much damage. Iran is 90 million people though. I still think Israel is being incredibly reckless here, though their military success has been impressive.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 06-16-2025

(06-16-2025, 09:35 AM)Goose Wrote:  Great article BC, thanks! The article makes lots of good points (high density!). IMO the most important ones are that 1) Israel having F-35s was key to their gaining air superiority (at least) in western Iran without incurring heavy losses, and 2) Iran's air force and IADS was not nearly as strong as Ukraine's, both in hardware and especially in leadership. IMO this needs more emphasis because the Israeli success needs to be evaluated in context.

I figured you would appreciate it, since as I read it I kept saying, "yeah, I learned that from Goose in the Ukraine thread".

One comment on Ukraine becoming like Israel is that Ukraine doesn't totally need to become like Israel in that it won't need to do large scale bombing campaigns over enemy airspace 1000 miles away.  It's a much heavier lift to establish air superiority over an enemy airspace than it is over your own airspace.  I presume Ukraine is not going to try to disarm Russia's nuclear capability.

BC

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - gocard14 - 06-16-2025

(06-16-2025, 10:20 AM)Goose Wrote:  

(06-16-2025, 09:55 AM)gocard14 Wrote:  One big thing missing on that list for the Israelis is any sort of longer range heavy bomber, which limits the ordinance they can deploy. Any chance they try to use their C130s in that role?

Good insight. The lack of a "heavy bomber" doesn't matter for most missions. Israel can just use "more" F-15s. The one place that may not/doesn't work is the deeply buried nuclear facilities. A large ground perpetrator requires a larger aircraft. I do not know if Israel has any, as they theoretically can't carry them. Iran probably has some surprises hiding to protect these deeply buried buy very high valued facilities. I don't think Israel could get a C-130 in there reliably and a "jury rig" bombing system is also risky. It may be a real problem for them.
 
https://www.twz.com/air/armada-of-usaf-tankers-just-deployed-east-over-atlantic-spurring-speculation provides another possibility. It is only a "possibility". As part of Scenario 4

Quote:American B-2s are the only known conventional assets that have the potential capability of badly disabling or destroying Iran’s deepest underground components of its nuclear program. We have constantly highlighted this scenario for many years. Pre-positioning a tanker bridge spanning the Atlantic to the Middle East would be needed to support those heavily-laden B-2 operations.

Certainly a possibility. However, there are B-2s already forward-deployed in Diego Garcia. That is a different direction of approach, but it requires many fewer tankers. Coming from the west is "safer", as Israel controls that airspace, but maybe the B-2 guys don't care about that :-) The administration could simply say "We tried to negotiate. That didn't work, so we took care of it ourselves". Perhaps also creating a credible threat to allow the administration to jump in and end the conflict with a "mutually acceptable" (gun to head) agreement.

I also wonder if the damage Israel is doing allows enough plausible deniability for a B2 strike to be done without acknowledgement of US involvement. Or perhaps the damage done by bunker busters from a B2 would be so characteristic it would be impossible to deny. 

While Trump did campaign on an isolationist platform, I wouldn't be shocked if he used this opportunity to have this be his "I got Bin Laden" moment, where with relatively minimal US involvement he could claim to have destroyed Iran's nuclear program. 

From Harris polling: 
85% of voters say Iran should not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons. 
60% of voters say the administration "should support" an Israeli effort to take out Iran's nuclear weapons program
54% support destroying Iran's nuclear weapons program with a military operation.

All of those numbers are even higher when looking at his republican base alone. But even democrats are split.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 06-16-2025

And what do the polls say about an open ended commitment of ground forces?

An airstrike only campaign is certainly tempting. But can it accomplish the military and political objectives? Israel has been signalling their objectives are regime change. Israel is 9 million people, Iran is 90. Israel is already involved in active ground combat in Syria and Gaza. Who is going to be sending the troops if they are required?

.....

B2 bombers couldnt be deniably used IMHO, not with modern satellite imagery widely available. It does seem Israel has been trying to hit Iran's buried infrastructure, and Iran is trying to fill in the holes. If B2s were dropping GBU-57s, our big hole makers, I think the satellites would pick it up. Only B2s and B52s are capable of dropping those.

https://x.com/gbrumfiel/status/1934396921449152541

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 06-16-2025

(06-16-2025, 11:35 AM)BostonCard Wrote:  One comment on Ukraine becoming like Israel is that Ukraine doesn't totally need to become like Israel in that it won't need to do large scale bombing campaigns over enemy airspace 1000 miles away.  It's a much heavier lift to establish air superiority over an enemy airspace than it is over your own airspace.  I presume Ukraine is not going to try to disarm Russia's nuclear capability.

BC

Unfortunately, in the NATO way of war, air supremacy over your own air space isn't near "good enough". Israel clearly has that, yet ballistic missiles are falling on its territory and killing its citizens. Israel is in the process of killing the archer. To do so requires entering Iranian airspace and persisting long enough to find and kill all the TELs Iran has.  Alternatively, if that wasn't possible, Israel would inflict enough damage on Iran that Iran has no choice but to end the war. That is the "ideal" case.

Ukraine ideally would need an air force that can inflict enough damage upon Russia that Russia could no longer fight. That is probably not attainable in anyone's wildest dreams. Having air supremacy over your own territory will not by itself stop a ground attack. The attacker (Russia) can bring up logistics at leisure in that case. Russia can also launch glide bombs with impunity, as they are at present. Ukraine would still have to fight a battle of attrition on the ground, which it very probably cannot win (unless Russia simply gives up).
 
If Ukraine can obtain air supremacy over a significant part (say 100/150 miles deep) of the Russian side of the FEBA, Ukraine can cut off the assembling Russian spearhead and kill it from the air. Ukraine needs to have (and retain indefinitely) the air power to do this mission. That wouldn't by itself defeat Russia, but it would make it absolutely clear to Russia that they couldn't defeat Ukraine either. Ideally, Ukraine would then advance into Russian held territory, easily mop up the Russians, rinse and repeat. This would eventually leading to a Russian collapse (or a Russian Tactical Nuclear Weapon. YMMV). NATO planned to do just that, but Ukraine will never have the resources to do it. They would quite quickly become over-extended and run out of bodies.
 
If neither Russia nor Ukraine can make any headway in this asymmetric struggle, both Ukraine and Russia could then bang away at each other with drones and tactical ballistic missiles. Ukraine would need to have parity there as well. This requires IMO an air capability not too dissimilar to what Israel possess today PLUS many more tactical ballistic missiles. Israel doesn't have enough Jerichos to go "head to head" with Iran in that exchange. Ukraine would need the ability to do that with Russia. So it ain't easy for Ukraine to be an Israel. It needs "reliable" allies. Of course Israel definitely needs a reliable US as an ally. That is often ignored. Ukraine wouldn't have that.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 06-16-2025

(06-16-2025, 11:01 AM)dabigv13 Wrote:  Good night, sweet prince. Even if they are Iranian, it hurts to see Tomcats blow up.
https://x.com/manniefabian/status/1934665118530322934
(These are non-operational F14 airframes that have been in this location for a couple years. Israel may have already destroyed some of their flying siblings in hangars, though I think they may have some in deep underground hangars that may still have survived so far)
Also in the tweet are strikes against the Iranian state broadcasting building. They were on air when the strikes happened. Video below (there are reportedly deaths and injuries from that strike but the video below from the broadcast doesn't show any gore).
https://x.com/arash_tehran/status/1934630559705116858
These are all claimed drone strikes. And we have video of Israeli drones operating freely over Tehran, as below.
https://x.com/AuroraIntel/status/1934641788385480830
------
Back to Ukraine, Ukrainian intelligence reportedly recently destroyed an electrical transformer in Kaliningrad. Video from that operation below.
https://x.com/wartranslated/status/1934181861812547646
------

Good Stuff! Thanks! The Kaliningrad transformer destruction is beautiful in its simplicity! Let the cooling oil drain out. The 5 million dollar damage isn't the point. It is the degradation of the Baltic Fleet and the base itself that is important. It won't be a quick fix.

Quote:Finally, seeing ballistic missile impacts in major cities is very jarring. Must be incredibly frightening to be seeing those coming at you. Israel has intercepted the vast majority, but there have still been impacts in multiple Israeli cities. If any of those had nuclear warheads, there are millions dead now in Tel Aviv and Haifa.

Amen. It also shows that shooting down ballistic missiles is never a 100% proposition, even if you have a "very good" capability. The US should never count on a missile defense system to be leak-proof.

Quote:A future Iranian regime, even one guided solely by realpolitik with no religious animus towards Israel, would be driven to obtain nuclear weapons. Would be a far cheaper way of establishing deterrence than trying to rebuild a conventional force that could withstand what Israel just did to them.

Obviously that is a possibility. However a Iranian regime with no religious bias IMO might very well conclude that not antagonizing Israel would be cheaper than deterring them. Being a "good neighbor" in the Middle East is not wise without having a minimal military. This is necessary to ensure your neighbors won't view you as a defenseless prize to be easily seized, but you don't need nuclear weapons to do that. One thing that always amazed me is that IMO while Iran's nuclear ambitions were publicly justified as a way to deter Israel (who is also undoubtedly a nuclear state) that wasn't the main reason. The main reason is to allow Iran to threaten its non-nuclear neighbors. If Iran had nuclear weapons it would be in the same condition the US and Russia are. We really don't want to get in a war with each other because it may escalate. We can't threaten each other with nuclear weapons because it is MAD. Iran would be no better off vs. Israel if it had nuclear weapons. It couldn't use them. Both sides know it.

Quote:I think Israel's best hope/plan is for Iran to become a failed state a la Libya or Gaza. Too weak to do much damage. Iran is 90 million people though. I still think Israel is being incredibly reckless here, though their military success has been impressive.

IMO Israel would prefer a stable Iran that wants to improve its economy more than to become the "big dog" in the Middle East. A prosperous Iran could be a counterweight to the ambitions of Turkey and Saudi Arabia in that direction. A failed state could be destabilizing. OTOH anything is possible. Israel is taking a lot of chances. Whether that is "reckless" may depend a lot on what Israel believes they can accomplish. They are in the deep end of the pool, and their margin of error is very small IMO.

---

(06-16-2025, 12:03 PM)gocard14 Wrote:  I also wonder if the damage Israel is doing allows enough plausible deniability for a B2 strike to be done without acknowledgement of US involvement. Or perhaps the damage done by bunker busters from a B2 would be so characteristic it would be impossible to deny.

I doubt there would be any doubt about such a strike if it takes place. The munitions alone would make it undeniable.

Quote:While Trump did campaign on an isolationist platform, I wouldn't be shocked if he used this opportunity to have this be his "I got Bin Laden" moment, where with relatively minimal US involvement he could claim to have destroyed Iran's nuclear program. 

From Harris polling: 
85% of voters say Iran should not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons. 
60% of voters say the administration "should support" an Israeli effort to take out Iran's nuclear weapons program
54% support destroying Iran's nuclear weapons program with a military operation.

All of those numbers are even higher when looking at his republican base alone. But even democrats are split.

Independent of the polls, Trump always was against Iran getting nuclear weapons. He restored sanctions and abrogated the treaty in his first term. He could also claim in his second term he gave Iran a chance to negotiate and they didn't. Taking a low-risk free shot would be entirely in concert with his policy IMO.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 06-16-2025

https://x.com/markito0171/status/1934707887370281142

Many prisoners or inpatient drug rehab patients have escaped a facility in Western Iran. Claims of both online, nothing very reliable I have seen yet.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 06-16-2025

(06-16-2025, 12:19 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  B2 bombers couldnt be deniably used IMHO, not with modern satellite imagery widely available. It does seem Israel has been trying to hit Iran's buried infrastructure, and Iran is trying to fill in the holes. If B2s were dropping GBU-57s, our big hole makers, I think the satellites would pick it up. Only B2s and B52s are capable of dropping those.

https://x.com/gbrumfiel/status/1934396921449152541

Exactly. The munitions give it away. Filling in the holes may not be totally nuts. Israel may be attempting to utilize the ability to drop bombs in exactly the same spot to "drill down" deep enough to break through into the working areas. Seems like a reach, but if your only tool is a hammer...

Quote:And what do the polls say about an open ended commitment of ground forces?

An airstrike only campaign is certainly tempting. But can it accomplish the military and political objectives? Israel has been signalling their objectives are regime change. Israel is 9 million people, Iran is 90. Israel is already involved in active ground combat in Syria and Gaza. Who is going to be sending the troops if they are required?

Neither the US nor Israel have any intention of using ground troops in Iran, except possibly special forces (Israeli ones are probably already there in small numbers). . The military objective of getting Iran off the nuclear threshold can certainly be accomplished by a B-2 strike. It may be possible for Israel to accomplish it by themselves. A raid may be the methodology. That would be the biggest risk yet if Israel tries it. The political objectives of Israel (whatever they actually are) may not be accomplished. IMO Israel would be satisfied but not ecstatic with that outcome.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 06-16-2025

(06-16-2025, 02:07 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  https://x.com/markito0171/status/1934707887370281142

Many prisoners or inpatient drug rehab patients have escaped a facility in Western Iran. Claims of both online, nothing very reliable I have seen yet.

I wonder if Israel will enable a jailbreak from Evin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evin_Prison

BC

---

Economist article on what/how Israel is trying to do vis a vis Iran's nuclear program (should be gifted).

https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2025/06/16/israels-race-to-kill-irans-nuclear-dream?giftId=f8425f7b-990a-4b16-a47f-f06deedc57b3&utm_campaign=gifted_article

Quote:Israeli military planners are relatively optimistic. They distinguish between two types of mission to degrade Iran’s nuclear programme. The first is aimed at preventing what they claim was the imminent threat of “weaponisation”. This, they say, has now been largely achieved by the strikes carried out so far against the spnd labs and offices, as well as the assassinations of the scientists. The second type of mission is aimed at setting the programme back by years. That would presumably include the destruction of the major enrichment sites and the elimination of the stockpile of heu.

BC

---